Department of Emergency Medicine, UCSF-Fresno Medical Education Program, Fresno, CA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, UCSF-Fresno Medical Education Program, Fresno, CA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;67(3):379-83. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.08.007. Epub 2015 Sep 23.
Irrigation of the cutaneous abscess cavity is often described as a standard part of incision and drainage despite no randomized, controlled studies showing benefit. Our goal is to determine whether irrigation of a cutaneous abscess during incision and drainage in the emergency department (ED) decreases the need for further intervention within 30 days compared with no irrigation.
We performed a single-center, prospective, randomized, nonblinded study of ED patients receiving an incision and drainage for cutaneous abscess, randomized to irrigation or no irrigation. Patient characteristics and postprocedure pain visual analog scale score were obtained. Thirty-day telephone follow-up was conducted with a standardized data form examining need for further intervention, which was defined as repeated incision and drainage, antibiotic change, or abscess-related hospital admission.
Of 209 enrolled patients, 187 completed follow-up. The irrigation and no-irrigation groups were similar with respect to diabetes, immunocompromise, fever, abscess size, cellulitis, and abscess location, but the irrigation group was younger (mean age 36 versus 40 years) and more often treated with packing (89% versus 75%) and outpatient antibiotics (91% versus 73%). The need for further intervention was not different in the irrigation (15%) and no-irrigation (13%) groups (difference 2%; 95% confidence interval -8% to 12%). There was no difference in pain visual analog scale scores (5.6 versus 5.7; difference 0.1; 95% confidence interval -0.7 to 0.9).
Although there were baseline differences between groups, irrigation of the abscess cavity during incision and drainage did not decrease the need for further intervention.
尽管没有随机对照研究表明切开引流时冲洗脓肿腔有益,但冲洗脓肿腔通常被描述为切开引流的标准步骤。我们的目标是确定与不冲洗相比,在急诊科(ED)行切开引流时冲洗皮肤脓肿是否会降低 30 天内进一步干预的需求。
我们对在 ED 接受切开引流治疗皮肤脓肿的患者进行了一项单中心、前瞻性、随机、非盲研究,将患者随机分为冲洗组和非冲洗组。记录患者特征和术后疼痛视觉模拟评分。通过标准化数据表格对 30 天的电话随访进行评估,以确定是否需要进一步干预,定义为重复切开引流、抗生素更换或脓肿相关住院。
在纳入的 209 例患者中,187 例完成了随访。冲洗组和非冲洗组在糖尿病、免疫抑制、发热、脓肿大小、蜂窝织炎和脓肿位置方面相似,但冲洗组更年轻(平均年龄 36 岁 vs 40 岁),更常采用填塞(89% vs 75%)和门诊抗生素(91% vs 73%)治疗。冲洗组(15%)和非冲洗组(13%)进一步干预的需求无差异(差异 2%;95%置信区间 -8%至 12%)。疼痛视觉模拟评分(5.6 分 vs 5.7 分;差异 0.1;95%置信区间 -0.7 至 0.9)也无差异。
尽管两组之间存在基线差异,但切开引流时冲洗脓肿腔并未降低进一步干预的需求。